PC 012313 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Council agreed to leave it in for Specific Plans or PUDs that were approved prior to November 2008. Chair Blank noted that the proposed language says "with a public hearing" and inquired how literal the discussion was about the exemption process. He further inquired if that means that it could be noticed on a Friday, a hearing held 72 hours later, and an exception granted; or does it mean it comes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dolan replied that he is not sure that language is necessary because all of this would go to a public hearing. He continued that if it is a development project, it would have a public hearing before the Planning Commission. He noted that there may be some circumstance where a road up to a tank would not necessarily have a public hearing; however, if the City is going to design and fund the project, the City would want to make sure there is a hearing. He emphasized that under most circumstances, definitely in a private development situation, there will be multiple public hearings, whether or not this ordinance is adopted. Mr. Dolan stated that the question is whether or not the Commission agrees with the Council regarding the special circumstance for something envisioned by a Specific Plan or a PUD. He indicated that this is a little less controversial; and although not everyone was 100 percent on board, it was ultimately included in the motion. He continued that the second part, probably where there may be a little bit more disagreement, is if the Commission wants to allow an exception process on a case -by -case basis for that or not. He noted that in the video recording, an exception process was not necessarily mentioned, but there was talk that the Council would have the ability to approve something like this that was brought before it. He added that to do this, there has to be a process in place, so staff built that in. He further added that there obviously will need to be some clarification at Council but that he thinks the Council would benefit from the Commission's opinion on this issue. Chair Blank commented that there surely has been a lot of research done about putting in the exemption process which is not specified in the ordinance. He asked if the City Attorney has any position on that one way or the other as to whether or not there is a precedent and challengeable by referendum. Ms. Harryman asked Chair Blank, for clarification purposes, if he is asking what former Councilmember Cindy McGovern asked in her email to staff. Chair Blank replied that it would be a good start. He added that he just does not know what the legal position is; the City brought it up as a general issue, and wanted to find out if this is something that can be challenged. Ms. Harryman stated that the Council is charged with interpreting what the voters put in place, and so it is looking at roads as a structure. She continued that some people could argue that only buildings are structures, but the Council appears to be going in the direction that roads are structures, but it seems to also want a balance and looking at an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 10 of 44